I have read a few posters on here state that the Cards will owe $4m to Scott Rolen next year as part of a bonus. Is that true? Was that a condition of the Rolen/Glaus trade? If so, that is terrible! Why aren't the Jays paying it?

Over the last two years, the Cardinals must be leading the league or at least top 5 in what I would call dead weight. My definition of dead weight would be one of three categories:

A player on the payroll receiving either salary or a bonus of at least $1m but did not play due to:

1.   Being on the DL for at least 60 days.
2.   Being released but still owed money.
3.   Being traded but still owed money.

Off the top of my head, that list would include: Carpenter, Mulder, Clement, Encanarcion, Edmonds, Wainwright, Spiezeo, Glaus, and Kennedy. (Not sure about Izzy). It appears that K. Greene might be headed in that direction and now Rolen will be in 2010. Perhaps some of you statistic junkies can add up the millions on that list and see where we rank.

This dead weight is just killing our payroll flexibility. I know all teams deal with it to a certain extent but we seem to specialize in it. Injuries are a part of the game but we need to get better at not tying up large chunks of salary to high injury risks. Releasing and trading players while still paying them is just stupid. I am surprised that Mr. Dewitt would stand for that.

If we are going to pony up for Albert in a year or two, we can't afford any more dead weight.

I'm not sure that Wainwright can be classified as "dead weight" at any point.  He missed time with a freak injury but returned down the stretch.  I think truly "dead weight" in the injury sense would be limited to Carpenter (for missing most of two years) and Mulder (same thing).  Clement only made $1 million for not pitching last year I believe, so he's not on the magnitude of Carpenter and Mulder for 2007-2008.

It's early to call either of Glaus or Greene dead weight because the season isn't even half over yet.  One or both could have a strong second half and be worth their contract.

Spiezio and Kennedy are both "dead weight" in the released sense.  Not much else to say there.

The trading away of Edmonds didn't cost that much and the value of David Freese last year offset most of the money we ate from Edmonds contract IMO.

Hard to say Izzy was "dead weight" unless you expand your definition to guys failing to perform for an entire year basically.  He wasn't necessarily injured, traded, or released...he just failed to perform up to expectations.

Another thing about "dead weight" is that it is almost exclusively caused by veteran players.  A major advantage to building from within is that the risk of a "dead weight" contract is greatly reduced.

This is important since you mentioned Pujols contract and needing to limit "dead weight" deals in order to resign him.  This is precisely why DeWitt realized the team needed to build from within in the style of Luhnow/Mozeliak rather than the veteran heavy style of Jocketty IMO.  Jocketty's approach to building a team lends itself to higher risk of "dead weight" contracts because veterans make more money generally.  If Colby Rasmus gets hurt in the next few years, it is much less costly than Jim Edmonds getting hurt a few years ago.

It might be fun to sign veteran players who are more established, but they also carry the risk of becoming burdensome.  Youth doesn't become burdensome as often as established talent.

Look at it this way...say Pujols costs $25 million per year going forward (with other money being deferred for instance).  That likely makes Pujols roughly one fourth of the total payroll.  If the Cardinals are going to be able to pay for premium talent at some other positions, they need to keep some positions cheap.  The only way to be cheap and talented is if the talent is young and homegrown (see Wainwright, Molina, Rasmus, Schumaker, etc.).

So you have Pujols making $25 million.  Your top 3 starting pitchers most likely combine to make around $30 million (i.e. Carpenter, Lohse, Wainwright).  That leaves $45 million if the payroll is $100 million or so.  If you can fill 10-11 roster spots with young internal talent, that only costs $4-5 million.  That leaves the other $40 million to fill the remaining 10 roster spots with some more expensive talent.

If you can fill 16 roster spots with internal talent you only spend about $8 million on those players and have $35+ million for the remaing 5 roster spots.  At the end of the day, the way to get the most talent on your roster within a reasonable budget is to have as many young, internal players as possible make the team.  You can then spend more money on the remaining roster spots.

Well, what's happening with the Cards is what's happening in baseball in general - you're going to see teams with two or three guys making huge amounts, and a large number of guys making below $1 million - with only a handful of guys in the middle.

The structure is such that the middle-level guys are being squeezed out.  They're not good enough to command the megabucks salaries any more ("the high cost of mediocrity", as Bill Veeck used to call it in an earlier day) and they can be replaced fairly easily by cheaper, younger talent.

The union, of course, isn't doing anything about it as they tend to represent only the top-level talent, and some of the middle-level guys have begun to grouse about it - they do represent, after all, well over half the union membership.

If anything breaks the union, it'll be discord from within - and this might be the mechanism by which it may happen.

Final thought on this topic for the night, the Cardinals 2010 payroll looks to be somewhat flexible at this point.  The table comes from Cot's, where I usually get my contract information.

The Cardinals have $50.3 million locked up in the following players for next year:

Albert Pujols $16.0 million
Chris Carpenter $14.5 million
Kyle Lohse $9.2 million
Yadier Molina $4.3 million
Adam Wainwright $4.8 million
Dennys Reyes $2.0 million

Some roster players that will be arbitration eligible include:

Ryan Ludwick ($3.7 million in 2009)
Chris Duncan ($.825 million in 2009)
Skip Schumaker ($.430 million in 2009)
Brad Thompson ($.650 million in 2009)
Josh Kinney($.405 million in 2009)

Ludwick could add to his 2009 salary with a solid year.  Duncan doesn't seem to be on pace for much of a raise.  Schumaker should make some decent cash.  Thompson and Kinney don't seem likely to make a ton.  For estimate's sake, let's say they combine to cost $15 million in 2010, which should be an exagerration.

That leaves 15 roster spots total.  The following players will almost certainly return to the ML roster with less than 3 years of ML service time, and thus make less than $.500 million in 2010:

Colby Rasmus
Jason Motte
Chris Perez
Kyle McClellan
Brendan Ryan
Joe Thurston

Let's also assume that the Cardinals pick up Ryan Franklin's $2.75 million option for 2010 in this scenario.

So, with all of those players theoretically on the roster and paid, the Cardinals payroll rests at about $71 million.  A total of 8 roster spots remain, broken down as:

2 Starting Pitchers
1 Left Handed Relief Pitcher
1 Third Baseman
3 Outfielders
1 Infielder

The Cardinals farm system seems likely to be able to cover at least the #5 spot in the 2010 rotation comfortably.  There are options internally for the LH reliever spot as well (Jaime Garcia maybe?).  The Cardinals should have at least 2 outfield spots covered internally, and Tyler Greene could easily be the reserve infielder.  One way or another the system should be able to fill at least 5, maybe 6 of those remaining 8 holes.  At the cost of only $.500 million each, those 5-6 players would add $3.0 million or less to the overall payroll.

Thus, by using our growing number of internal options, we could have $20+ million available to bring in 2-3 outside players to fill holes in the rotation, bullpen, or lineup for 2010.  This is why growing internal options is crucial.  It allows the team to concentrate money on positions of need while most of the roster is cover by internal options at less than market value.

Good night!

Jmodene1 wrote: Well, what's happening with the Cards is what's happening in baseball in general - you're going to see teams with two or three guys making huge amounts, and a large number of guys making below $1 million - with only a handful of guys in the middle.

The structure is such that the middle-level guys are being squeezed out.  They're not good enough to command the megabucks salaries any more ("the high cost of mediocrity", as Bill Veeck used to call it in an earlier day) and they can be replaced fairly easily by cheaper, younger talent.

The union, of course, isn't doing anything about it as they tend to represent only the top-level talent, and some of the middle-level guys have begun to grouse about it - they do represent, after all, well over half the union membership.

If anything breaks the union, it'll be discord from within - and this might be the mechanism by which it may happen.

The last couple off seasons have shown examples of middle tier players that have to settle for less money than they expected.  Good observations JMo.

The Kyle Lohse deal from last spring is a great example of a guy who wasn't top tier talent and thus had to sign a smaller than expected contract in 2008.  There are fewer and fewer teams willing to sign the types of deals that Suppan and Marquis got after the 2006 World Series.  Guys that are not elite at their position are seeing a definite negative trend in their value.

That might be good for baseball as a whole, but it sucks for those middle tier players.

Salary has been very linear for several years AFAIK.

More to the point, here's a link from a post at BOTBS. It would be interesting to see a comparison in terms of some kind of $/WAR something or other, but my hunch is that every teams fans feel they experience above average injuries to that team's players and half are wrong.

I agree with everyone's assessment thus far, but I would still like to know why we are paying the bonus to Rolen. 

Another question I have is when deferred money is paid out, does it count against that year's payroll? For example, we have been deferring about $2m per year for Carp and Albert. Will that moeny count against the payroll in 2020 or whenever it is paid out? If so, I think deferred money is a mistake. I am philosophically opposed to sending someone a check that is not on the field playing for you.

GScottAR wrote: I agree with everyone's assessment thus far, but I would still like to know why we are paying the bonus to Rolen. 

Another question I have is when deferred money is paid out, does it count against that year's payroll? For example, we have been deferring about $2m per year for Carp and Albert. Will that moeny count against the payroll in 2020 or whenever it is paid out? If so, I think deferred money is a mistake. I am philosophically opposed to sending someone a check that is not on the field playing for you.

The reason that teams love to defer money is that the deferred money does not garner interest.  $2 million will be worth less in 2020 than it is today, almost certainly.

GScottAR wrote: I agree with everyone's assessment thus far, but I would still like to know why we are paying the bonus to Rolen.  

The reason the Cardinals' organization is paying Rolen's bonus is because that was what was agreed to.  Sure the Cardinals' organization would have preferred that Toronto pay the bonus, but that was not what Toronto agreed to.  Toronto did agree to send $1,8 M (IRCC) cash to the Cardinals' organization, so you can think of it as splitting the bonus in half if you like.

As far as the 2010 salaries,  I would not be surprised if Pujols' 2010 salary is about $10 M more than it is currently listed in Cot's (under the current contract).

----Jmodene1 wrote: ---------------

Well, what's happening with the Cards is what's happening in baseball in general - you're going to see teams with two or three guys making huge amounts, and a large number of guys making below $1 million - with only a handful of guys in the middle.

The structure is such that the middle-level guys are being squeezed out. 
-------------------------------------------------- -------------------------


This condition seems to be a natural evolution of most any economic system. Seems like we put in checks and balances to keep a strong middle class, and still over the long term the system moves towards a "rich get richer" scenario.

I guess it's just human nature and mankind's natural tendency towards greed and control.

ambill10 wrote: Another thing about "dead weight" is that it is almost exclusively caused by veteran players.  A major advantage to building from within is that the risk of a "dead weight" contract is greatly reduced.

Good point. 

Also by building from within, a team can build depth in case of "dead weight" from a veteran.  A team cannot sign multiple veterans (for one position) in case of injury to one, but a team can have multiple young inexperienced players for depth in the minor league system.  Even the Yankees are not able to get top tier FA 3B (for example) to sign as backup in case of A-Rod becoming "dead weight".  So when A-Rod was out, who did the Yankees have playing 3B?

The other advantage I like about building from with in is as the long 162 game season wears on, the veterans are more likely to become "dead weight" (injured) where as the youngsters are more likely to improve with experience.

Speaking of dead weight contracts, the Cubs seem to be looking for them.

They have almost $123 million tied up in 2010 in the following players:

Zambrano ($18.75 million)
Soriano ($17.0 million)
Ramirez ($16.65 million)
Lee ($13.25 million)
Lilly ($13.0 million)
Fukudome ($12.5 million)
Dempster ($9.0 million)
Bradley ($10.333 million)
Miles ($2.7 million)
Samardzija ($1.0 million)
Vizcaino (released, but $.5 million opt out owed!)

So that $123 million only covers 10 roster spots.  The Cubs also have to go to arbitration with the following players, ensuring that they will cost more than league minimum to varying degrees in 2010:

Heilmann
Cotts
Marmol
Hill
Marshall
Fontenot
Guzman

The Cubs have really backed themselves into a corner and it will be interesting to see what their potential new ownership does to rectify the situation.

Things like this make me glad we have a conservatively run team that doesn't handcuff itself with signings to please the fans every whim!

ambill10 wrote: Speaking of dead weight contracts, the Cubs seem to be looking for them.

They have almost $123 million tied up in 2010 in the following players:

Zambrano ($18.75 million)
Soriano ($17.0 million)
Ramirez ($16.65 million)
Lee ($13.25 million)
Lilly ($13.0 million)
Fukudome ($12.5 million)
Dempster ($9.0 million)
Bradley ($10.333 million)
Miles ($2.7 million)
Samardzija ($1.0 million)
Vizcaino (released, but $.5 million opt out owed!)

So that $123 million only covers 10 roster spots.  The Cubs also have to go to arbitration with the following players, ensuring that they will cost more than league minimum to varying degrees in 2010:

Heilmann
Cotts
Marmol
Hill
Marshall
Fontenot
Guzman

The Cubs have really backed themselves into a corner and it will be interesting to see what their potential new ownership does to rectify the situation.

Things like this make me glad we have a conservatively run team that doesn't handcuff itself with signings to please the fans every whim!

I agree that the Cubs have a lot of dead weight but they seem to have a much larger margin of error than the Cardinals do. When you are willing to spend more than 30-40 million per year in payroll, you can afford to make more mistakes.

----GScottAR wrote: ---------------

I agree that the Cubs have a lot of dead weight but they seem to have a much larger margin of error than the Cardinals do. When you are willing to spend more than 30-40 million per year in payroll, you can afford to make more mistakes.

---------------------------------------------


Don't forget the market the scrubs play in or some of the extra revenue they earn. They aren't willing to spend more money as much as they are able to spend more money. Big difference.

kotheb wrote:

----GScottAR wrote: ---------------

I agree that the Cubs have a lot of dead weight but they seem to have a much larger margin of error than the Cardinals do. When you are willing to spend more than 30-40 million per year in payroll, you can afford to make more mistakes.

---------------------------------------------


Don't forget the market the scrubs play in or some of the extra revenue they earn. They aren't willing to spend more money as much as they are able to spend more money. Big difference.

I wonder where the ceiling is for the Cubs payroll though.  Chicago is a big market, but it's still not New York or LA.  Here's there recent payroll history from Cot's:

• Opening Day payrolls for 25-man roster
  (salaries plus pro-rated signing bonuses):
• 2009: $134,809,000
  
• 2008: $118,345,833
  
• 2007: $ 99,670,332
  
• 2006: $ 94,424,499
• 2005: $ 87,032,933
• 2004: $ 90,560,000
• 2003: $ 79,868,333
• 2002: $ 75,690,833
• 2001: $ 64,715,833
• 2000: $ 62,100,000

The Cubs have added $35 million in payroll in the last two years, surely that pace is not sustainable.  Unless someone willing to lose money buys the team, they will almost certainly stop raising payroll significantly due to acquisition costs, if not lower payroll.

The Cubs financial situation will be interesting to follow in the next couple years.

I agree. It's funny too that they've been "willing" to spend so much more money, yet how poorly they've actually done so.

Up until 2005, the cubs spent about as much or less than the Cardinals (and Astro's) even though the cubs (and Astro's) were/are in a much bigger market and have much higher revenues (many years on the second largest superstation also gave the cubs fans across the US). I think it was the fear of a century of futility that spurred them to spend more based on their market rather than their rivals' spending. Now they have committed to large long term contracts and they must live with them, even new ownership will take these commitments into consideration in valuing the team and setting future budgets. The cubs should easily be able to spend 30%-40% more than the Cardinals, but they cannot continue to increase their budget at the rate they did from 2005-2009. With smart use of the budget, the Cardinals can consistently compete with the cubs even if the cubs consistently spend 40% more, just as the Bo-Sox compete with the Yankees who spend $70M more each year.

GScottAR wrote: When you are willing to spend more than 30-40 million per year in payroll, you can afford to make more mistakes.

Doesn't pretty much every team spend more than $30 million on payroll per year?

AustinCardinal wrote:

GScottAR wrote: When you are willing to spend more than 30-40 million per year in payroll, you can afford to make more mistakes.

Doesn't pretty much every team spend more than $30 million on payroll per year?

I was referring to the fact that the Cubs spend $30-$40m more per year than the Cardinals do, at least they have the last few years.